Trump Ignoring ABA's "Not Qualified" Ratings

Trump is bypassing judicial ratings agencies before making his nominations — and it has led to a substantial increase in 'not qualified' nominees
November 15th, 2017

Additional Short Video: Brett Talley, Young Inexperienced Nominee, Wins Approval

With the large number of judicial vacancies, President Trump has been rapidly nominating candidates; however, many of those nominations are deemed "not qualified" by the American Bar Association.

Out of President Trump's 51 nominations 2 were unanimously rated "not qualified". And prior to 2016 only 2 nominations were ever unanimously given such a poor rating. Overall, 8% of Trump's nominations were rated unqualified by a majority, compared to the only 0.7% average from 1986 to 2016.

Brett Talley is a 36 year old lawyer and one of Trump's nominations. He is a Harvard Law School Graduate who has received one of the unanimous "not qualified" ratings. Some people disagree with the ABA's ratings. "Mr. Talley served as deputy solicitor general for the state of Alabama, currently serves in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy and was recommended by Alabama's US senators," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement to The Times. "He is more than qualified to serve in the federal judiciary." Republicans have commonly criticized the ABA's ratings. On the other hand, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Business Insider in a statement that the spike in "not qualified" nominees put forth by the Trump administration is "very worrisome."

Questions

1. Do you believe the ABA's ratings are more of a guideline or a suggestion? Why?
2. Why do you think Republicans tend to dislike the ABA's ratings and Democrats tend to agree with them? Should this divide be changed?
3. Do you believe President Trump's nominations are just? If not, what solution(s) could you offer?

Trump Responds to UCLA Basketball Incident

President Trump responded on twitter following the release of 3 UCLA basketball players who were arrested in China for shoplifting, expressing his displeasure for the lack of gratitude shown by LaVar Ball, father of one UCLA players released.

UCLA freshman Liangelo Ball, Cody Riley, and Jalen Hill were arrested on suspicion of shoplifting from a Louis Vuitton store in Hangzhou while team was visiting China to play Georgia Tech on that Friday. Shoplifting in China is a serious deal and can be 5-10 years in jail, but the boys were released after intervention by President Trump.

Trump had tweeted earlier in the week, calling for gratitude from the players for his work in this case with China. He tweeted, “Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!”.

Liangelo Ball, son of LaVar and younger brother of the Los Angeles Lakers Star, Lonzo Ball, publicly apologized in a news conference and thanked President Trump for personally asking the Chinese president to intervene in the case. Along with Liangelo, both of the other players thanked the President for his involvement in their release.

Although the issue appeared somewhat resolved, father LaVar Ball came to twitter to write “They try and make a big deal out of nothing sometimes… I’m from L.A. I’ve seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses.”

Trump tweeted again on Sunday, calling Lavar “Very ungrateful” and saying “I should have left them in jail!”

Questions:

Should Trump have taken the measures he did to release the players from China, and what does Trump gain from the intervention?

Is Trump following the intended use of his twitter account or is he going to far in his more personal tweets?


http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/19/politics/trump-response-lavar-ball/index.html

Trump postpones decision to lift ban on the import of African elephant hunting trophies

Trump's elephant trophy reversal comes as a surprise to administration employees, interest groups

By: Miranda Green

Nov. 19, 2017

In a tweet Friday night, Trump postponed the decision to lift a ban on importing elephant hunting trophies from two African countries, surprising interest groups and his administration officials alike. Tweeting again on Sunday, Trump said he planned to announce his decision on the issue next week.

Ryan Zinke, Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, is working with the president to review the impact of the proposal to lift the ban, which was originally put in place by Obama’s administration. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has been reviewing the restrictions on importing elephant hunting trophies from Zambia and Zimbabwe “for years”, as mandated by the Endangered Species Act, but has determined the ban no longer necessary in elephant conservation.

To many animal rights or environmentally minded groups, such as the Humane Society, Trump’s choice to defer his decision on the matter is a surprising beacon of hope.

Questions:

1. What types of economic impact could the lifting of the ban have?
2. What does this inter-governmental controversy reveal about Trump’s administration and leadership?
3. What role/effect did interest groups, public opinion and other outside parties play/have in this decision?

UVA Mishandles Sexual Assault and Violates Title IX

UVA Violated Title IX, Had "Mixed Record" on Sexual Assault Cases, Federal Investigation Finds

11.19.17

The Education Department's Office of Civil Rights mandate colleges to properly address reported cases on campus, which is called Title IX. This was created to ensure a safe environment in colleges campuses. However, when Rolling Stones published an graphic article in 2012 about the gang rape of a University of Virginia freshman at a fraternity party, it raised questions and concerns about how colleges addresses sexual assault cases on campus and whether they are handled properly. The investigation of UVA highlighted that the university had not ensured such incidents will occur again. As a result, a federal investigation finds that UVA has violated Title IX, did not take the reports seriously and guilty of not imposing appropriate disciplinary action.

Despite the inconsistencies found in the Rolling Stone's article, this report the uncovers how inadequate colleges campuses are towards addressing sexual assaults. Ultimately, no college campus have successfully ensured that victims are treated fairly and the assaulters are punished appropriately.

Questions:
1. Should UVA be held accountable for their mishandling of the sexual assault case and violating Title IX?
2. What kind of preemptive measure should UVA and other colleges adopt to provide a healthier environment for all students?
3. Is the greek system partially at fault for the high number of sexual assault cases on college campuses?

Class Action Lawsuit Launched Against Weinstein Company

Harvey Weinstein’s accusers sue his company, alleging it enabled ‘predatory behavior’ by Richard Winton
11.15.17

Harvey Weinstein has been the subject of many headlines since early October 2017 when the New York Times published an article in which they revealed three decades of sexual assaults and cover-ups.

Now, he, along with his company from which he was fired, are being sued. A new class-action lawsuit alleges that his company enabled him in these behaviors, specifically his lawyer. His company is now faced with the prospect of bankruptcy due to the serious, and numerous, accusations.

Weinstein has been accused of some form of inappropriate behavior by more than 70 women including actresses such as Cara Delevingne, Angelina Jolie, Lupita Nyong’o, and Gwyneth Paltrow. Currently, there are 14 open sexual assault investigations in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and London. He has paid eight settlements (that the public is aware of). The victims are seeking $5 million in damages, a number which is expected to rise with the new allegations coming to light. The stories of victims have sparked campaigns about sexual assault awareness under the hashtag #MeToo.

Questions:

1. Do you think this will have an impact on the industry and how it deals with sexual assault?
2. Do you believe Weinstein and/or his company will be held liable or not liable?